The Super Tuesday Results Thread

[Sam Spade]

Far too early to call Ohio folks.  Don't even think about it.

[Sam Spade]

Let me clarify remarks made about 10 minutes ago.  Probably somewhere around a 2-1 shot Santorum wins Ohio.  Really am not seeing where the votes come from to help Romney overcome the margin.

[Sam Spade]

Let me clarify remarks made about 10 minutes ago.  Probably somewhere around a 2-1 shot Santorum wins Ohio.  Really am not seeing where the votes come from to help Romney overcome the margin.

Really? I very much respect your political insight. But why wouldn't Cuyahoga and Hamilton propel him over the top?

If taken alone, yes, they might.  But we don't know where the precincts are that are reporting, and generally in Cleveland, the inner precincts with no votes report last.

[Sam Spade]

That last batch of Franklin County was about even.

[Sam Spade]

Let me clarify remarks made about 10 minutes ago.  Probably somewhere around a 2-1 shot Santorum wins Ohio.  Really am not seeing where the votes come from to help Romney overcome the margin.

Really? I very much respect your political insight. But why wouldn't Cuyahoga and Hamilton propel him over the top?

If taken alone, yes, they might.  But we don't know where the precincts are that are reporting, and generally in Cleveland, the inner precincts with no votes report last.

That appears to be true in Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland as well. Maybe Columbus and Cleveland are not that variegated, but Dayton (Montgomery County) might be. And it has a fairly low percentage of precincts reporting. Still, if I had to guess, the odds of Santorum getting more votes in the end is probably around 60% now. The "problem" is that the GOP electorate is just that variegated. It's not like a Pub versus a Dem contest - at all.

True, but this primary has more to do with class/income than other things, so maybe variegated in a different way.

Remember that I said intangibles were all on Rick's side in Ohio (as opposed to Michigan, where they were all against him).  For some reason, Ohio is just poorer and more Republican than it polls.  Has been since rocks cooled (to use a Torieism).  I remembered that from 2008 Dem primary, which is to say that things are not "that" different.

[Sam Spade]

That slug of Hamilton was extremely favorable - Romney won it by about 6,000.

[Sam Spade]

The Hamilton numbers were so favorable that you have to certainly give Mitt a shot to win now.

[Sam Spade]

Franklin is pretty much done (91%), Mitt gained 1000.

[Sam Spade]

In other news that no one will pay attention to, I'd be really surprised, with what's left, that Rick makes the 20% threshold in GA.

[Sam Spade]

Mont Co gave Romney about another 3,000.

[Sam Spade]

I agree. Romney is certainly favored at this point.

[Sam Spade]

CNN posts that Rick has 20% of the votes in Georgia, with 97% in, so a few delegates are hanging in the balance there.

Check Google, not CNN - Santorum is only at 19.6%, and therefore, outside of the threshold.

[Sam Spade]

OK delegate breakdown from AP:
14 Santorum, 13 Romney, 13 Gingrich = wash

GA delegate breakdown from SoS:
45 Gingrich, 14 Romney, 2 Santorum.  5 CDs still out.  Mitt leads in the two Atlanta black CDs and Newt has majorities in two others, so probably 10-4-1 when all is said and done.

The TN delegate system is strange, and is destined to f-k Santorum, except that things can be changed later, maybe.  I read the rules here, and the CD count is actually based on named delegates on the ballot, which Newt dominates, but as mentioned, the delegates are not bound now.

[Sam Spade]

The TN delegate system is strange, and is destined to f-k Santorum, except that things can be changed later, maybe.  I read the rules here, and the CD count is actually based on named delegates on the ballot, which Newt dominates, but as mentioned, the delegates are not bound now.

As Erc explains here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145763.msg3200303#msg3200303

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145763.msg3210230#msg3210230

the delegates do in fact seem to be bound by the results of the primary.  So, even though Santorum didn't have his own delegate slate there, the relevant proportion of the delegates he's entitled to from the primary vote are still obliged to vote for him at the convention.

There is no disagreement that the at-large delegates are bound to the winner of the primary split proportionally to whomever meets the 20% threshold.

Without looking at the video, I cannot agree with Erc's interpretation of the rules, and no lawyer would, not to mention that it does not fit with the rest of the system.  The rule says that you can fill a delegate spot when it become vacant.  But this language presumes that a delegate has vacated in the first place.  Since Santorum had no delegates in place "in the first instance", the rule cannot apply.  After all, delegates have already been elected via the primary.

It seems to me that there are two ways that Santorum can get the delegates.  One, if the state party bounds them to the actual results, something which is not explicitly stated in the rules.  Two, if Santorum can convince the elected delegates to vote for him based on the actual results, or force them to vacate.  Even then, the more reasonable interpretation of the rules seems to be that the vacated delegates must be replaced by the person whom they support.

FWIW, according to TN SOS, the delegates elected support the following candidates: TN-1 (3 Newt), TN-2 (3 Romney), TN-3 (3 Newt), TN-4 (2 Romney, 1 Newt), TN-5 (2 Romney, 1 Newt), TN-6 (3 Newt), TN-7 (2 Newt, 1 Romney), TN-8 (3 Newt), TN-9 (3 Romney), so 16 Newt, 11 Romney.

[Sam Spade]

The AP says 14-13-13 in Oklahoma, I wonder where their numbers are coming from.

It could be a different interpretation of the rules.  The Green Papers, says:

-If one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote or only one candidate receives 15% or more of the vote, that candidate receives 3 delegates.
-Otherwise, if more than 1 candidate receives 15% of the vote, the candidate receiving the most votes receives 2 delegates and the candidate receiving the second most votes receives 1 delegate.
-Otherwise, the top 3 vote-getters receiving 15% or more of the vote each receive 1 delegate.

It could mean that if 3 candidates get more than 15%, each get 1 CD-level delegate.  If that's the case, the 15 CD delegates are split 5 a piece, which would give us the AP's results.

Well, under your interpretation, it is implied that only of the candidates tied in actual raw votes would the third paragraph come into play.

The APs interpretation is that if only two candidates get over 15% does the second paragraph apply, otherwise if three candidates get over 15%, the third paragraph applies.

Which do you think makes more sense?